They're also buying up the last of the "bullet button" guns and gunsmiths are working on alternative ways to reload almost as easily as people in the free states.

You are not macho, affluent AW shooters with three AW's each, on the national average (as per the NSSF info inKolbe).You are poor little victims, oblivious to laws, and subjugated by constitutional legislation. You are whiners AND victims, victims who need AW's, and concealed handguns too.

And your proposed armed-confrontation behavior is new territory for any advanced country, contrasting 1)self defense legal basics, 2)"thou shalt not kill" and 3)Justice William Blackstone.

Your name in Tom Ray. You are a Libertarian hotshot who can't discuss CATO's brief work in Heller?

Okay. Let's see the next chapter.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Your article (from FOX) tells how the many legal "workaround" gimicks will be dealt with in the future. But we learned soething. By 2013 we presented a tighter definition and format than in the '94 AW restrictions. Tom, these law cheater gimicks will flow, but I think that the GVP types will fail and bumble their way to a better situation anyway;

For example, we "anti's" got trashed by the terms of the '94 AW ban. The gratuitous terms of Manchin-Toomey were a similar debacle.Yet each would have improved the overall situation (and the former has numbers which are measurable enough to be significant). My sorry-ass, disorganized GVP side learned from each. Kinda like the day Gabby Giffords dusted herself off and moved forward with her life. Manchin Toomey was a trojan horse package which presented six fatal BC flaws, but was still better than chaos in the private gun market. Just part of a long, steep, failure-prone, uphill obstale course.

How long? The goal of of the GCA '68 was coached by Frank Sinatra (in a boat eventually steered and motivated by Billy Jack, seriously). Since they had set out for gun registration, there was little celebration in that group upon the adoption of the GCA '68 . They felt they failed overall, yet their modest bit has somehow firmly withstood the forty year assault of the gun lobby. (It's minimal terms were reniforded line for line in Heller: the low-key FFL system remains). I humbly suggest that we dysfunctional "anti's" fail our way to the goal line okay in this gun issue, however clever the bypass for the bullet buttons.

At the moment, the worst enemies of the gun extremists may be the economy, the dis-interested millenium generation, and the higher courts.

Your idea that we can take pieces of definitions and exceptions from various parts of legislation and copy/paste them wherever we want to make the law read in a way that is defensible is risible but doesn't create any credibility problem for me.

I'm aware that legislators, not internet posters, write the laws and I know that an exception to one definition can't just be applied to another because it would be nice or reasonable.

Your gun is an assault weapon under the definition I posted. There is no exception in the law to that definition.

And you still can't even convince yourself to give it up. Keep on wondering why you fail to convince others.

You may have a technically solid point, or may not. If so, it involves technical language (rimfire vs. centerfire) and the actual intention of that language, and the chosen terms' acuity. Within the law you are quoting is a provision exempting tube feeding .22's, and i suggest that exemption would be cited loudly in court (based on appearances if nothing else) IF I REPEAT IF massive tube feeder confiscation occurred. In your cynicism, you assume that court would back confiscation. In my hope for our system I assume the judge would be considerate of the express exception, and use his common sense, balancing merits.

Which would lead to the issue of the seventeen round capacity. I hate to feed your .22 Caliber Whinerama, but that's a lot of shots. Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

I want to weigh in that nine months of the .22 caliber outrage crap is puhlenty, my friend. Is there some way you could go back to Bloomberg or tools or something?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Which would lead to the issue of the seventeen round capacity. I hate to feed your .22 Caliber Whinerama, but that's a lot of shots. Many could see the public health benefit of toning that down, considering. So there's that.

If you were among those "many" you'd be more convincing.

But you won't give up your AW. You just want others to give up theirs.

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Sorry, I cant find public health benefit in my copy of the Constitution

It's in the preamble between common defense and blessings of liberty.

From Wikipedia for example: "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms.Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[22]

Whether that concept applies in this case is a debatable point. Whether the concept of public health benefit exists isn't debatable at all, it's enshrined in the constitution.

From Wikipedia for example: "[T]he concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms.Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"[22]

Whether that concept applies in this case is a debatable point. Whether the concept of public health benefit exists isn't debatable at all, it's enshrined in the constitution.

The "debatable point" is whether gun restrictions are effective, or not. Each court case cites the public safety benefit of restrictions, as per the studies presented on our forums. No modern cases claim the public health benefit of RTC.

This 2017 study has been added to the Wrenn briefs. It uses four models (including Lott's and Moody & Marvel's) to examine this question. Over fourteen years in 11 new RTC states, the states with firm gun restrictions experienced a 42% drop in crime, the states with loose restrictions show 9%.

Quote

States that have enacted right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have experienced higher rates of violent crime than states that did not adopt those laws, according to a Stanford scholar.

(...)Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue found that states that adopted right-to-carry laws have experienced a 13 to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the 10 years after enacting those laws.

(...) “There is not even the slightest hint in the data that RTC laws reduce overall violent crime,” Donohue stated in the paper.

Share on other sites

Careful, Joe. You're stepping very close to the line of saying NJ's classification of your gun is too strict. Break the main taboo of the left by saying a gun control policy or group has gone too far and you'll soon be demonized like I am.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

A bit of both, actually. Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do, as long as it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this:

Quote

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

it helps to avoid discussion of a federal judge saying something like this...

Federal judges say lots of stuff (and you need to cherry pick it). Such LCM's have a capacity which is opposed by four different federal districts.

Quote

Pretty much any kind of personal attack will do...

What the hell do you expect if we taste praline and dick flavor? You make your own bed around here. Your routine lies become poison to a quality community. Two weeks ago you denied Blackstone's layout of the British right to oppose tyrants four times, in spite of quality sourcing. You trashed your creds again last week, Tom. You dis-respected yourself, IMO.

This week, you posted a innocent-looking long gun picture, failing to display the offending feature within the .22 weapon, an LCM receiver. When corrected you didn't man up. (You played boring, coy, girly games about your deception.)

"Personal attacks, waah?"? I feel I am attacking the deception, not my fellow sailor here. You are a fine fellow, I suppose, but somehow one who doesn't mind soiling himself frequently.

If I could wake people up and cause them to be concerned about their rights, you'd see lots of drug warriors suddenly concerned about the fourth amendment, lots of evangelicals suddenly concerned about abortion rights, and yes, lots of lefties suddenly concerned about second amendment rights.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Benitez doesn't sound like a British name but he does have some gift for understatement...

Quote

Miller implies that possession by a law-abiding citizen of a weapon that could be part of the ordinary military equipment for a militia member, or that would contribute to the common defense, is protected by the Second Amendment. Concluding that magazines holding more than 10 rounds might be found among today’s ordinary military equipment or that such magazines would contribute the common defense, requires only a modest finding.

...

Another exhibit, the Attorney General’s Exhibit 50, appears to be a 100-page, 8-point type, 35-year survey of shooting incidents published by Mother Jones magazine. Oppo. Gordon Declaration at Exh. 50. Mother Jones magazine has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence. It is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

My badass AW has a black stock and ss barrel. It comes apart for ease in concealment. And magazines? I could get thru college selling them. Hi-power scope? You know it. When I'm not actually killing small children and puppies, I shoot at jet skiers and power boaters. You gotta gimme that.

You want me to learn how to play hide and seek, On PA? That's not how the big boys do it.

Quote

When something is apparently uncited in a post of mine, look upthread.

You are too slippery for that, buster. Still not cite, eh?

You disguise shit and mis-lable shit and misquote shit and twist shit. You directly misquoted Winkler in one link phrasing. John R. Lott 's input on may i$$ue was hiddsn "upthread, under a deceptive link phrasing:(a double deception to hide your shitty source),. That guy (your double-hidden disgraced source),.suggested background checks for voting before a Republican voting committee last week. But back to the point.

On Political Anarchy, the big boys regularly provide cites to support their positions. Especially you, Tom.

Oh no you don't. What a collosal fail, because military justice is handled on an entirely different legal basis than civilian gun mayhem. Your underwear militia needs a state sponsorship and a muster, or you are civilians, in your underwear, with gunz. At home, I might add.

What a joke. You are a delusional poser with poor reading habits, my friend. I sourced thus detail elsewhere. At least read SAILING ANARCHY dammit.

Thank you. I checked it out, there's not much there. I think you're grasping at straws. Judge Benitez may be your hero, but this is a snoozer for me, a no-brainer, since four district courts have upheld the logic of containing LCM's. (The guns they slide into are severely restricted or totally banned in eight states.)

Secondy, it's the Ninth CIrcuit, where they will never accommodate Judge Benitez, IMO. Speaking of the Ninth Tom, what happened to your breakthrough case approving OC for AW's in the Marianas Islands?

You're pretty good, BC, you fit right in with the posers. The Gun Club Choir needs to replace choir members, you should join up. WIth you and Greever singing they have two occasional singers in the choir.

Here's a tip: Eugene Volokh will make you look really smart in that crowd...and nobody reads him.

BS. There's no more reason to believe you would actually read material I post this time than any previous time. Over several years of debate, you failed to learn the difference between Jack Miller and Otis McDonald.

If you had read Judge Benitez's injunction, you would probably quote some part of it with which you agree or disagree. But you didn't.

There's enough there to temporarily halt this summer's confiscation program. Which is kind of unfortunate to me. I was sorta looking forward to seeing how many Uncooperative Californians we have. I suspect it's more than the "scores of thousands" who declined to sign up to have their guns confiscated in CT.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You are a major-league whiner, Tom. You get upset by Pelleteiri's illegal gun, seven round limits in NY, the constitutional banishment of LCM's, and the fact that gun suicides are considered gun violence. You have a rich future as a whiner. I'm in a lawn chair laughing at your whole bit.

Selective confiscation will happen. No one is here (or in any state capital) to convince you otherwise.

When are you going to explain the gun confiscation enforced by the founding fathers?

Shays' Rebellion

The Whiskey Rebellion

We had loyalty oaths or gun confiscation demanded in Pennsylvania and Mass.

Washington had the ALL colonies disarm known Tories. They each complied.

Here's a follow-up Q. Why was gunpowder confiscation not listed as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence?

And another. Why are you wetting your pants about selective, legal gun confiscation? Do you think it will go away after power snivelling?

I glanced at it from beginning to end a few times. I don't put much stock in temporary injunctions, especially in in the Ninth these days. (I put stock in the legislative choices of Californians, in a future hopefully exposed to fewer of battlelfield guns. Did the Marianas ruling sweep the land yet?).

However, you have something to crow about with D.C.'s Wrenn/Grace outcome. Congratulations.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Here's something for Uncooperative Tom to mull over later this evening.

"Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to sell firearms to the public? No, the 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday inTeixeira v. County of Alameda, a landmark decision affirming the government’s constitutional authority to strictly regulate gun shops. The 9–2 ruling is a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms could invalidate myriad laws governing firearm commerce. The decision may be imperiled, however, if the plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices areincreasingly eagerto expand the scope of the Second Amendment."

In this case, I agree with the 9th. Enforcing zoning rules isn't really "strictly regulating gun shops." It's just regulating businesses. The idea that gun shops are exempt because of the second amendment is pretty laughably wrong to me.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

When in 1990 New Jersey imposed an "assault weapons" ban on the possession of semiautomatic rifles with certain cosmetic features that give them a military look, the response was underwhelming. One year later, the New York Timesreported that of the estimated 100,000 to 300,000 affected weapons in the state, "Only four military-style weapons have been turned in to the State Police and another 14 were confiscated. The state knows the whereabouts of fewer than 2,000 other guns."

More recently, after 2008's Heller decision supposedly took the most draconian gun restrictions off the table by reaffirming the Second Amendment's protection of individual right to own weapons, Connecticut passed a comparatively less restrictive registration requirement. Owners responded by telling the state about their possession of "as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents," according to the Hartford Courant.

"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem," commented Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-Stafford).

In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.

More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities.

Yes, I know. I pay attention to court actions whether or not they go the way I like. Following this one on calguns.

Nope. If you have comprehended the big pic, you have kept your thoughts to yourself. You do not acknowledge the myriad cases lost by CATO. There's quite a pattern in play, and it's gotta be disappointing to any Second Amendment absolutist.

Share on other sites

Gun laws define appropriate behavior to judges. They define appropriate behavior to society, too. It's interesting to me that you are taking a wedge issue here, and levering it.

Here we find you carelessly applauding gun scofflaws, the same way you applaud gun suicides. I see each instance is both an unfortunate human tragedy and as an unfortunate family tragedy. The divisive element seem to bring you joy

5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If you ever get around to reading the injunction you might figure out the issue.

The Dorado tactic. Your position is so superior it needn't be stated. FAIL.

If you ever develop the habit of clicking and reading links, you will quit asking for sources that have already been given.

I hope you don't. It's pretty funny. Especially when you follow it up with a post about how much you read.

Panties in a bunch today?

Why would I comb through your posts for an absent source? I lost interest with fucking squirrel activity somewhere along the way. Other worthless TR MO: compound hide and seek with John R. Lott as a source gets alternated with rick rolls to the Miller cover sheet...yet you butcher the basics of Miller.

A sharp guy like you needs to avoid hide and seek with sources on PA. So much for your adolescent diversion, buddy.

My serious question for Tom Ray: If the founding fathers could confiscate guns for a variety of reasons (including political loyalty and insurrection), what is your issue with selective confiscation today?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Whassup with 2.5 years of confiscation confusion, Tom? Malcolm claims that fifty years of individual gun rights prevailed before our revolution. Yet such rights in 1790 were historically absent. No pamphleteers or edititorials criticized repeated powder confiscations and the breaking of gun locks by local magistrates ariound 1775.

GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A GRABBER, disarming massive numbers of Tories and Uncooperatives, eh? Do I need to document the four examples of gun confiscation again? Will the squirrels and .22's distract us another ten months?

I take it from the non-answer that you can't find colonial examples of banning and confiscation of guns. Neither can I. That's not what "well regulated" meant back then, nor should it be what it means today.Post 34 Tom 2-16 Claims the absence of "confiscation" by Colonists in the FF period.

Post 76 Feb. 18 Tom replies that only the British confiscated guns.

Post 76. Tom adds an un-sourced history piece which coaches bringing confiscation into the FF-era gun control discussion.

p1780 Herein enters the Standard Model myth that the cause and effect of the American Revolution was the right to keep and bear arms. The claim is unproven, yet Standard Model writers somehow link the drafting of the Second Amendment to Revolutionary War disarming and British embargoes. (269, quoting Halbrook) How can this be if we do not have one piece of historical evidence that expressly links the two?270

270. Nevertheless, the Heller majority agreed with this interpretation. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 594 (2008)

(Quoting Heller: “And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.”).

Indeed, the Heller majority cited to two sources in support of its conclusion, but both are taken out of historical context. For the history and context behind the two sources relied upon, see Charles, “Arms for Their Defence”?, supra note 3, at 421–35.

Neither the debates, state ratifying conventions, letters, pamphlets, nor newspaper editorials on the Constitution support this conclusion. It is a figment of the popular imagination that the Model writers created.

The interpretation is also problematic in that it conflicts with the fact that Congress, colonial governments, and the local committees of public safety frequently disarmed suspected loyalists or persons who did not take an oath of allegiance.271

"The like" includes these assault weapons. At least according to FL grabbers. I'm not really sure what an "assault weapon" is so I have to take the word of any grabber who identifies a gun as an assault weapon.

"The like" includes these assault weapons. At least according to FL grabbers. I'm not really sure what an "assault weapon" is so I have to take the word of any grabber who identifies a gun as an assault weapon.

You sound pretty confused, Tom. You you can't sort the gun basics any more. You dumbed it down for guns.

Share on other sites

Well, the "control" people have a long history of confusing the issue by claiming that the rifle you can buy in a local store is the same as the rifle being issued in the military.

These same "control" people also like to call standard capacity mags "high capacity", but "high capacity" is defined as almost any number from 7-20.

Hello? The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models. Except full auto feature. which WHOOPS was deemed less lethal though more dangerous.

The NSSF and SAF had their chance (under strict scrutiny guidelines FFS) before the full en banc Kolbe judges. Your problem, bubba: commercials for the guns said the consumer models are to military spec.

Look you sport whiner, "high capacity, standard capacity" (meaning twenty rounds for the Mimi 14) blah blah... whatever...fine---just choose your own term and present it, I'm easy. But I suggest that you won't like the arrangements under any term, or any number = white noise.

Here you go. My source is page 23 of the Kolbe decision, which cites the NSSF.

Quote

The State has calculated that — accepting the plaintiffs’ estimate that there were at least 8 million FSA-banned assault weapons in circulation in the United States by 2013 — those weapons comprised less than 3% of the more than 300 million firearms in this country. Moreover, premised on the plaintiffs’ evidence that owners of the banned assault weapons possessed an average of 3.1 of them in 2013, the State has reckoned that less than 1% of Americans owned such a weapon in that year.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hello? The NSSF could not demonstrate any difference between military models and consumer models. Except full auto feature. which WHOOPS was deemed less lethal though more dangerous.

The NSSF and SAF had their chance (under strict scrutiny guidelines FFS) before the full en banc Kolbe judges. Your problem, bubba: commercials for the guns said the consumer models are to military spec.

Look you sport whiner, "high capacity, standard capacity" (meaning twenty rounds for the Mimi 14) blah blah... whatever...fine---just choose your own term and present it, I'm easy. But I suggest that you won't like the arrangements under any term, or any number = white noise.

"Could not demonstrate a difference... except" Well, nice to see you are confused as to what "difference" means free hint: it means they are not the same

Cell phone cases claim to be made to mil spec as well. I find it unlikely that any AR ad out there actually says what "mil-spec" it meets - if it does, I'm sure you will be disappointed if you actually look up what that spec is.

They look similar, but one is an issue weapon, and the other one isn't

If it isn't select (or burst) fire, then it isn't what the military is buying.

En banc Kolbe was strict scutiny? Cite?

"entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review"

That is from page 10 of the Kolbe en banc ruling. The only Kobe strict scrutiny ruling I can find is the vacated one.

If you look at the concurring opinions, the "esteemed" judges actually complain about the whole idea of subjecting it to strict scrutiny. I can see why - they had to re hear the case to get to the predetermined outcome.

The partial federal court ordered strict scrutiny from the district court. My info is that the 4th Circuit Court complied.

I don't know how this worked between the courts. But Judge Traxler ruled 2-1 that Kolbe go back to District Court under strict scrutiny guidelines. Simultaneously, the MD AG pressed for en banc review. There, going far beyond the AW issue itself, intermediate scrutiny of AW rights was ordered,

Quote

(Source: David Kopel, a CATO writer, February 4, 2016)

Today the 4th Circuit decided Kolbe v. Hogan, a Second Amendment challenge to a 2013 Maryland arms prohibition statute. The statute bans the sale of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and also bans many firearms, by labeling them as “assault weapons.” In a 2-1decision written by Chief Judge Traxler, the Fourth Circuit held that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for bans on common arms, such as those at issue in Kolbe. The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. The Maryland attorney general announced that he will seeken banc or Supreme Court reversal of the Kolbe decision. Below is a summary of the most important parts of the Kolbe decision.

(...) Strict scrutiny was also appropriate for the magazine ban, because “a citizen’s ability to defend himself and his home is enhanced with an LCM.” For example, the inherent difficulties of some defense situations mean that citizens often need the ability to fire multiple shots, and...

In its opinion in the case, Kolbe v. Hogan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that Maryland’s law must be subjected to strict scrutiny, sending the ban back to a lower court. The judges said that the state’s ban was an affront to what Scalia called the “core” purpose of the Second Amendment: “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” As a consequence, the court found that the ban was likely unconstitutional. “We are compelled by Heller … to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review,” wrote Justice William Byrd Traxler, Jr.

Today the majority holds that the Government can take semiautomatic rifles away from law-abiding American citizens. In South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland, the Government can now tell you that you cannot hunt with these rifles. The Government can tell you that you cannot shoot at targets with them. And, most importantly, the Government can tell you that you cannot use them to defend yourself and your family in your home.

In concluding that the Second Amendment does not even apply, the majority has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. In addition, the majority holds that even if it is wrong when it says that the Second Amendment does not cover these commonplace rifles, Maryland can still lawfully forbid their purchase, even for self defense in one’s home-the core Second Amendment right.

My friends do not believe this ruling impairs the rights citizens have under the Constitution to any significant degree. In my view, the burden imposed by the Maryland law is considerable and requires the application of strict scrutiny, as is customary when core values guaranteed by the Constitution are substantially affected. I recognize that after such a judicial review, the result could be that the 89 Maryland law is constitutional. I make no predictions on that issue. I simply say that we are obligated by Supreme Court precedent and our own to treat incursions into our Second Amendment rights the same as we would restrictions on any other right guaranteed us by our Constitution. Therefore I respectfully dissent.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't know how this worked between the courts. But Judge Traxler ruled 2-1 that Kolbe go back to District Court under strict scrutiny guidelines. Simultaneously, the MD AG pressed for en banc review. There, going far beyond the AW issue itself, intermediate scrutiny of AW rights was ordered,

Strange, you try to present yourself as a legal expert - but now I just have to assume that you just find quotes that you like and present them as fact.

It really doesn't matter what anyone said about the 2016 ruling, or what was said in it, since that ruling was vacated (kinda like it never happened) by the 2017 en banc (which means all the judges in the circuit heard the case) opinion. I quoted this ruling. It says they used intermediate scrutiny to decide things.

The fact that you keep claiming they used strict scrutiny is, at best, misleading.

Share on other sites

Strange, you try to present yourself as a legal expert - but now I just have to assume that you just find quotes that you like and present them as fact.

It really doesn't matter what anyone said about the 2016 ruling, or what was said in it, since that ruling was vacated (kinda like it never happened) by the 2017 en banc (which means all the judges in the circuit heard the case) opinion. I quoted this ruling. It says they used intermediate scrutiny to decide things.

The fact that you keep claiming they used strict scrutiny is, at best, misleading.

I pose as a legal expert? Please. I'm a hotshot carpenter who enjoys reading, and debunking. Speaking of debunking...

Denial much? I cited the strict scrutiny of Kolbe two ways, before and after.

Before: Judge Traxler ordered strict scrutiny from the bench, but the full en banc court went rogue?

After: The Trace, my source, stated that strict scrutiny had been applied.

Quote

The Kolbe ruling was the first time a circuit court had used strict scrutiny to evaluate a gun ban.

The original version of Kolbe was vacated, yes. Then, acting on strict scrutiny guidelines per decorum, Kolbe was decided again, against the proliferation of AW's. Page 10, your quote, seems to be referring to the initial District Court decision.

It's history now. To conclude our misunderstanding, under strict scrutiny guideline, the Kolbe decision has determined that AW's have no constitutional protection.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I pose as a legal expert? Please. I'm a hotshot carpenter who enjoys reading, and debunking. Speaking of debunking...

Denial much? I cited the strict scrutiny of Kolbe two ways, before and after.

Before: Judge Traxler ordered strict scrutiny from the bench, but the full en banc court went rogue?

After: The Trace, my source, stated that strict scrutiny had been applied.

The original version of Kolbe was vacated, yes. Then, acting on strict scrutiny guidelines per decorum, Kolbe was decided again, against the proliferation of AW's. Page 10, your quote, seems to be referring to the initial District Court decision.

It's history now. To conclude our misunderstanding, under strict scrutiny guideline, the Kolbe decision has determined that AW's have no constitutional protection.

WTF are you talking about? Rogue? Traxler's panel judgement was appealed - that is why there is an en banc opinion. Where do you get this decorum nonsense from?

The panel decision means nothing - it went in front of the whole circuit. If the circuit had decided not to hear it en banc, then Traxler's panel decision would of set the standard to strict scrutiny in the 4th circuit. But it didn't, since it was vacated. En banc, they agreed with the district court.

From the en banc opinion:

"As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district
court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent

....

entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review."

Page 51: "First of all, intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate
standard because the FSA does not severely burden the core
protection of the Second Amendment"

Page 69: "Meanwhile, we conclude that no more than intermediate scrutiny applies here,"

Or you could read the concurring opinions, where they bitch about the whole concept of strict scrutiny.

So, please explain where you see that strict scrutiny _was_ applied - not in a dissent, not in a vacated ruling, not in an article about a vacated ruling, where was it applied in Kolbe v. Hogan.

Reading this opinion is painful, since the opinion is written as if an M16 and an AR are the same thing. Of course, anyone with a brain knew how the ruling went after reading the emotional appeals that are the first 7 or so pages of it.

I can't wait until, say, a common bolt action centerfire rifle is called an unusually dangerous weapon of war - since the military uses them as sniper rifles

Share on other sites

WTF are you talking about? Rogue? Traxler's panel judgement was appealed - that is why there is an en banc opinion. Where do you get this decorum nonsense from?

The panel decision means nothing - it went in front of the whole circuit. If the circuit had decided not to hear it en banc, then Traxler's panel decision would of set the standard to strict scrutiny in the 4th circuit. But it didn't, since it was vacated. En banc, they agreed with the district court.

From the en banc opinion:

"As explained below, we are satisfied to affirm the district
court’s judgment, in large part adopting the Opinion’s cogent

....

entitled to Second Amendment protection — the district court
properly subjected the FSA to intermediate scrutiny and
correctly upheld it as constitutional under that standard of
review."

Page 51: "First of all, intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate
standard because the FSA does not severely burden the core
protection of the Second Amendment"

Page 69: "Meanwhile, we conclude that no more than intermediate scrutiny applies here,"

Or you could read the concurring opinions, where they bitch about the whole concept of strict scrutiny.

So, please explain where you see that strict scrutiny _was_ applied - not in a dissent, not in a vacated ruling, not in an article about a vacated ruling, where was it applied in Kolbe v. Hogan.

Reading this opinion is painful, since the opinion is written as if an M16 and an AR are the same thing. Of course, anyone with a brain knew how the ruling went after reading the emotional appeals that are the first 7 or so pages of it.

I can't wait until, say, a common bolt action centerfire rifle is called an unusually dangerous weapon of war - since the military uses them as sniper rifles

So, strict scrutiny was ordered, but not used, you say. How did that work? Your evidence is unconvincing. And my source says it was used, but you have no source saying it wasn't.

Page 10, which you mentioned, is part of the edict to use intermediate scrutiny in the future. Page 51 confirms, under strict scrutiny, that intermediate scrutiny should be used in the future.

If you choose to deny that strict scrutiny wad used in Kolbe, fine, you have chosen the right crowd. i am familiar with the selective belief system of the SA Gun Club. But strict scrutiny rocks if it can support a decision like Kolbe.